EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes
Date: July 10, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alario, Miriam – ECCE
Jack, Christina – ASO
Jackson, Tom – Academic Affairs
Reid, Dawn – Student & Community Adv.
Shenefield, Cheryl – Administrative Svcs.
Spor, Arvid – Chair
Taylor, Susan – ECCFT
Tyler, Harold – Management/Supervisors
Widman, Lance – Academic Senate
OTHERS ATTENDING: Clarissa Jones, Ken Key, Barbara Perez, Margaret Quinones, Emily Rader,
John Wagstaff
Handouts: PBC Meetings (2008 and 2009), Budget Update email from Chancellor’s Office (Erik
Skinner), CCLC Budget Update #8 (July 8, 2008)
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.

The new ASO Director of Finance and PBC representative, Clarissa ‘Clara’ Jones, was introduced.
Approval of May 15, 2008 Meeting Minutes
1. Page 1 – no decision on GASB 45 contribution has been made.
2. Page 2 – Meetings, #4 - remove last sentence: “No previous motion was ever made…”
3. The minutes were approved as amended.
Special Contract Funds
1. Forty-two applications were submitted by the June 30th deadline, totaling approximately $3.0 million.
Number of requests per department:
a. Human Resources/Staff Development – 2
b. Administrative Services – 0
c. Public Relations/Marketing - 1
d. Academic Affairs – 26
e. Student Services – 15
2. The VPs will review and prioritize submissions and will present PBC with the prioritized list
sometime in August.
PBC Meetings
1. Meetings will move to Library 202 beginning January 2009.
Statewide Budget:
1. Budget update for the state reported on July 8, 2008 Community College League of California
(CCLC) handout.
2. Key information about the Budget Conference Committee is highlighted in the email handout from
Erik Skinner, Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Policy – Chancellor’s Office:
a. Conference Committee budget funds Proposition 98 at the minimum guarantee level –
committee will increase $2.3 billion in Proposition 98 funding due to higher revenue
assumptions.
b. The committee adopted a COLA of 2.43 percent.
1
c. Funds for ‘green/energy’ Career and Technical Education (CTE) fields – proposed funds
reduced to $12.5M (from $25M) and shifted to the California Department of Education
budget.
3. Last summer, 115 FTES for ECC not counted – potential for more growth money for 2007-08. Can
pay back borrowed FTES this year (2008-09). This summer showing 15% over target.
2008 PBC Evaluation Results:
A total of seven surveys were completed. The results are as follows:
Responsibilities of the Committee
1. PBC assures that the planning and budgeting processes are interlinked.
 6 – agree; 1 – strongly disagree
 Comments: (we’re getting there; PBC only works on 2%-3% of the total budget)
2. PBC assures that planning and budgeting decisions are driven by institutional priorities.
 1 – strongly agree; 4 – agree; 1 – disagree; 1 – strongly disagree
 Comments: (we’re working on it; we’re getting there; for only 2%-3% of budget; primarily
focused on recruitment and retention)
3. The committee created a planning and budgeting model that links both functions through an integrated
process with a common terminology.
 4 – strongly agree; 2 – agree; 1 – strongly disagreed
 Comments: (not so much a model but a calendar; calendar included steps to review the entire
budget but only plans for a small fraction)
4. The committee provided oversight and guidance for updating the Comprehensive Master Plan.
 5 – disagree; 1 – strongly disagree; 1 – no rating
 Comments: (didn’t spend time on it)
5. The committee incorporates program review recommendations into the planning and budgeting
process.
 3 – strongly agree; 1 agree; 3 – strongly disagree
 Comments: (program review – what’s that?; not to my knowledge; yes, when brought to PBC;
program review recommendations were the basis of allocation of the special contract funds).
Some of the program reviews were part of plan builder – not too many program review results
were used in requests for special contract funds. May see more program reviews in 2008-09.
6. The committee reviews/monitors ongoing planning and budgeting activities.
 2 – strongly agree; 2.5 – agree; 1.5 – disagree; 1 – strongly disagree
 Comments: (budgeting – yes, planning – no; agree within own scope, disagree within
institutional scope). Past planning software used: Q-Builder, Word and Plan Builder. Will
incorporate special contract funding application forms with Plan Builder. Plan Builder will
create better planning information for PBC.
7. The committee provides recommendations to the President regarding planning and budgeting
activities.
 3 – strongly agree; 4 – agree
 Comments: still Fallo’s call.
Meetings
1. Meeting discussions address the responsibilities of the committee.
 2 – strongly agree; 4 – agree; 3 disagree
 Comments: (Committee spends too much time circling the target, but eventually we hit it;
agenda created to address committee responsibilities but discussion drifts to details beyond the
scope of the committee, delaying progress; sometimes focus on very minute details which
detract from broader perspective).
 Chair can take more control of meetings.
2. You are comfortable speaking and voicing your opinion during the meetings.
 5 – strong agree; 2 agree
2
 Comments: (Managers are expected to follow a party line).
3. The meeting discussions contain an appropriate amount of structure and flexibility.
 3 – strongly agree; 2 – agree; 1 – disagree; 1 – strongly disagree
 Comments: (structure is at the whim of the chair; work gets done, slowly at times but price
paid for shared governance; not sure what is being asked).
4. The final version of the PBC minutes accurately reflects the discussions that occurred in previous
meetings.
 5 – strongly agree; 1 – agree; 1 – strong disagree
 Comments: (very well done).
5. PBC Chair provides meeting agendas and draft meeting minutes in a timely manner.
 5 – strongly agree; 2 – agree
Discussion
1. The comments about the length of time it takes for discussion seem fairly common. The chair may
need to set tighter reins, but may be viewed negatively. Sometimes don’t want to stop discussions to
provide opportunities to voice opinions.
2. Some processes and decisions take a long time.
3. The importance of self-evaluation is to get a better sense of what and how well the committee is
doing.
4. This committee has done well with budgeting; planning is tough. Have taken steps towards linking
both, but tenuous because of changing planning software.
5. No quality third-party commercial planning tool exists for community college use. There are
approximately 20 colleges using some version of the planning software developed by Pasadena City
College. When development funds become available, ITS would like to develop an in-house planning
software. Plan Builder supports a basic planning structure and it’s easy to use – but it does not have
spell checker.
6. ECC planning piece has been in a state of flux due to changing software. Over the last few years,
progress has been made on the Comprehensive Master Plan. Large amounts of money are tied to the
Facilities Master Plan. Q-Builder and WORD (cutting/pasting) was used in prior planning. Will Plan
Builder be the front end planning tool for PBC? Ideally, Plan Builder will be used as a tool that
provides the guidelines for most internal funding sources. The suggestion was made for PBC to
review Plan Builder software functions. Is it set up to insert potential funding issues/criteria used to
assess the legitimacy of a funding proposal? It is easy to access the criteria if it was addressed.
7. A. Spor could ask Donna Manno to demonstrate Plan Builder for PBC.
8. Overall planning discussions should take place in September. Need to have an understanding of all
major areas on campus. Not having a unit plan in place undermines all planning for the district.
Global planning includes updates to the Comprehensive Master Plan and Accreditation Self-Study –
some planning agenda items are also part of PBC’s responsibility.
9. The VPs will prioritize requests for Special Contract Funds for each area. President Fallo wants
PBC’s input on the proposals before decisions will be made.
10. An opinion was given that PBC decisions are not always supported and that commitment and support
from administration should be made outside of Cabinet meetings. As has been mentioned in the past
PBC’s role is recommendation only. Also more PBC recommendations are being considered now than
in the past.
11. Some campus funding decisions are being made outside planning and budgeting processes – difficult
to control when multiple sources of funds are offered.
The next meeting is scheduled on Thursday, August 14th in the Alondra Room.
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Note taker: Lucy Nelson
3